To be disappointed with Mumsnet for campaign for gender neutral books.

[raltheraffe]

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2843801/Rapunzel-definitely-not-just-girls-says-publisher-announces-plans-make-children-s-books-gender-neutral.html

Apparently this all started with a MN campaign. What is so bad about books and toys for that matter that are biased towards one gender? I do not understand it at all.

I am donning my hard hat for this one, since it was people on here who came up with this daft campaign.

It'sFab - so do I (and as a child, I had countless 'xyz stories for boys' books on my shelf). But the problem is that for every parent like you, and child like yours (or mine) who doesn't care, there are other parents who won't buy their children 'incorrectly gendered' books or toys. (For instance one of my friend's ex husband kicked up an enormous fuss about his then 4-year-old having a toy cooker because it was a girls' toy. It was his son's favourite toy).

And there are girls up and down the country giving up on maths and the physical sciences early on in their secondary school career because they're told those subjects aren't for girls, and boys (even earlier on - usually primary school age) imbibing messages that being a boy is all about doing sports and reading is for cissies. I know that I'm going to have to guide my son through a school system where there will be enormous peer pressure on him not to be good at school work because it's not cool for boys, and where even at age 5 I had teachers saying 'just wait till he gets onto all those non-fiction books' (after I had explained that he'd spent all Christmas holiday writing stories... but, no, boys do fact books, they don't do novels, apparently). It matters massively.

And I repeat (yet again) no one has told me who is going to be damaged in any way whatsoever if we drop the labels "for boys" and "for girls."

Yy Lurcio.

Lurcio the observations regarding nurture are valid, however there are biological differences in male and female neonates' brains which exist as a direct result of differential activation of gonadotrophin response genes. The exact mechanism of sexual differentiation is not fully understood yet but it is well documented as a phenomenon.

Madrigals I would do whatever sold the most kit. I would not concern myself with ethics, just bottom line profit.

My boys both like cooking. My daughter likes Science, maths and Languages. All enjoy the park and swimming. All had dolls and cars. DS1 loved his baby and buggy and DS2 his kitchen. The boys definitely played with the baby doll more than DD. It is about being open and giving your children all opportunities because of what they like, not because of what sex they are. DD 100% doesn't believe she can't do something because she is a girl. She sees herself as equal to the boys and so she should.

.

There are always lots of people on these threads saying "What's the fuss about? I just buy my kids what they want whether it's marketed for boys or girls."
So, do you think that:
...your children are only shaped by your opinion and are immune to marketing, social pressures or peer influence?
...we are already in a position where boys and girls play with all sorts of toys and those of us seeing significant differences are just hallucinating?
...you don't actually care about other people's kids having their choices restricted as long as yours are alright?
...no parents or marketers shape children's choices, there's just some 'pink gene' or something (that has evolved over the last 100 years) predisposing girls to the pink and sparkly?
Really, which is it?

And how does this biological difference in neonates, about which i would love to read more, translate into consistent childhood and adult preferences?

I think it's fantastic to gender neutralise toys, books, whatever ...

Children should grow up enjoying activities, toys, books because they like them, not because the gender appropriation assigned to them.

That's interesting Ralf. But given the other point about d-values, and the massive overlap in interests and abilities between the sexes I still want to know what the benefit is from labelling books. Who needs "A girls' book of ballet stories" and "A boys' book of cars". It certainly doesn't help the Billy Elliots of the future, or the future Michele Moutons.

And if boys like the truck books and girls like the butterfly books, well, nothing is lost by labelling them "the truck/butterfly book for children", is it?

Me buying my son a book titled .....for girls is not limiting anyone's choices. They don't care about advertising. If they like something, they like it. They don't care about the colour or the writing on the box/cover.

Stereotype threat is one of the reasons why it is a good idea to remove labels like this. Constantly tell girls that sciences are for boys and they will underperform in science tests regardless of their actual ability. Constantly tell boys that languages are for girls and they will underperform in language tests regardless of their actual ability. And it's not like the labels serve any useful purpose (well, if they do, I'm still bloody well waiting to hear what it is).

Girl and boy are EYFS stage keywords, aren't they? So most children will learn them between the age of 4 and 5.

"I would do whatever sold the most kit. I would not concern myself with ethics, just bottom line profit."
Wow. I know which of those two is more important to me. Making money and being a good person are not mutually exclusive anyway.

It's a brilliant campaign.

It's not a Mumsnet campaign, though. To say that it is, implies erroneously that MNHQ puts it weight and resources into the campaign, and/or makes decisions about the direction of it. That's not the case as far as I know; the people who run it did initially "meet" each other on a thread on here, but they run the whole campaign on their own time and at their own expense, and without any resources or input from MNHQ.

Itsfab: "Me buying my son a book titled .....for girls is not limiting anyone's choices. They don't care about advertising. If they like something, they like it. They don't care about the colour or the writing on the box/cover."

But it does limit choices! Manufacturers and retailers believe that parents want gendered marketing, they say it sells well. To who, and why? Whatever the answers to that, it absolutely does restrict other parents' and children's choices.

And children absolutely do notice the advertising, the colour and the writing - are you kidding? Seriously? Children are gender and race conscious from the age of 2, and fascinated by the rules that shape being a boy or a girl. My youngest won't have anything blue or labelled for boys - my eldest will, but she'll hide it from her friends. And you MUST have heard small children challenging each other on why they're picked something that is for boys, or girls. I hear this all the time!

Incidentally, when I adopted my youngest her social work report noted that she was dressed in 'gender appropriate clothing'. She was 6 months old. I tried, really tried, to think what that was about - I can see that with older children, you wouldn't want foster carers dressing them all in one outfit. But nope, I always come back to thinking it's just as bad to put a child in clothes that are badly fitting or not right for the weather - so just 'appropriate clothing' would do the job.

Ral, would you sell books that were racist, just to make a profit? Ethics surely have to come into it at some point.

Its weird though I bought a truck for a friend's daughter because it was big chunky and bright colours. . seemed like fun. . and they tell me with surprise every time she has a day platting with it. . It never occurred to me it was a boys toy. . just seemed fun. . Didn't barbie have cars? ? .. ! I think over gender-neutralising is risky as who then has a world they can go to that feels about them. . just that hero stories could have girls as protagonists sometimes.. as they do. . and perhaps dressy up house toys have make characters? I grew up in mixed gender house so there was alwsys the opportunity to coss-gender toy and book wise. but I think that even enid blyton had quite strong female characters compared to fluffy tidy fairy books so go figure!

Another video for those who don't understand - there is a longer version but I haven't found it in English yet:

Pink Attitude: Princesses, Pop Stars, Girl Power:

Can anyone give me a rational logical reason for labelling books for girls or boys and making them pink or blue?

Oh, and can anyone tell me why when I was looking for a birthday card for my adult daughter the other day in a well known card shop every sodding one of them was pink?

It is quite bizarre how many people seem to think that this is dreary old feminists restricting everyone else's choices - when of course it gender marketing that restricts choice, and the dreary old feminists who are asking for more choice.

Yy Devora.